> This is much more controversial in the FOSS space than it seems to outsiders.

Free software has been sold since the dawn of Free software, by the central figures of Free software.

> There is the obvious problem that one of the Freedoms involves the ability to take your purchased copy and give it away 'gratis' to everyone else, thus undercutting the market for the original author.

This is exactly why it is not at all controversial to sell FOSS. You can easily be undercut. If you're successful selling FOSS, it's because you've made it really easy for your customers, been really helpful to them, or because they want to pay you because they like you, probably because they know you're putting work in. Free not meaning "gratis" doesn't mean that you can't get software gratis, it means that I'm not required to give it to you gratis.

This controversy is made up from whole cloth. I don't doubt that people are arguing about it, but neither person in that argument has any idea what they're talking about. They are people trying to ride the coattails of FOSS to get rich, as well they should (get rich in any ethical way you can.) But Open Source was a ploy to undercut Free software, and is operating just as intended, supplying corporations with free labor in return for nothing.

If you don't want to be copyleft, and you don't want to be ripped off as OSS, just be proprietary. The reason people don't want to do this is either because the software is not good enough to compete, or they can't afford the marketing and infrastructure to sell or even give away a proprietary product. So they pretend there's this honor system called the spirit of open source where the entire world is meant to ignore the freedom that permissive licenses give until the authors have the time to get rich. When Amazon ignores the memo, they pretend it's the concept of Free Software that's to blame, or even for that matter the concept of Open Source.

The problem is trying to benefit from the concept without actually believing in it, and failing. The point of Free Software is that people have access to the software that runs the machines that their lives depend on. The point of Open Source is to supply free labor to others in order to hopefully get attention, praise, or simply personal satisfaction. If neither of these things are what you're into, that's not something wrong with FOSS, and that's not something wrong with you.

> I simply do not care about the designation of "Free Software". It sucks and has painted itself into a corner. Modern policing of it's meaning (especially by the OSI which hilariously tries to pretend that "Open Source" is subject to FOSS definitions) is entirely just hypocrisy favouring the GPL.

These are two unrelated organizations with opposing philosophies. The reason OSI software is Free Software is because anybody can steal OSI licensed and do whatever they want with it, as long as they do some trivial things that the license requires, such as including a copy of the license, or possibly a credit for the author. The GPL is a restrictive license that obligates the people who distribute the software to many explicit and strict responsibilities that people are willing to sue you over. OSI licenses are not.